Google Claims Anothwer Politically Incorrect Dissident

Non-PC World -Google fires employee behind anti-diversity memo for ‘perpetuating gender stereotypes’


Note:  On the face of it, it  is remarkable that so many people, often in middle class jobs, are still willing to behave in politically incorrect ways when they almost constantly have before them examples  peopel accused of pc “crimes” which result in their loss of their job at best and criminal charges at worst.  But it is not so surprising when one thinks about. People have a natural resistance to being told they cannot express their honest views and feelings and the very act of making such thing effective illegal  increases the  desire to say them. In addition, the fact that political correctness  runs against human nature means that Nature will out sooner or later. Finally, some political correctness is  unintended because the parameters of political correctness are forever shifting  so that what may have been untouched by political correctness one day is politically incorrect the next. RH 

Telegraph 

Google fires employee behind anti-diversity memo for ‘perpetuating gender stereotypes’

James Damore, the engineer who wrote the memo, said he was exploring all possible legal remediesCREDIT: REUTERS

8 AUGUST 2017 • 6:16AM

Internet giant Google has fired the male engineer at the centre of an uproar in Silicon Valley over the past week after he authored an internal memo asserting there are biological causes behind gender inequality in the tech industry.
James Damore, the engineer who wrote the memo, confirmed his dismissal, saying in an email to Reuters on Monday that he had been fired for “perpetuating gender stereotypes”.
Mr Damore said he was exploring all possible legal remedies, and that before being fired, he had submitted a charge to the US National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) accusing Google upper management of trying to shame him into silence.
“It’s illegal to retaliate against an NLRB charge,” he wrote in the email.
Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc based in Mountain View, Calif., said it could not talk about individual employee cases.
Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai told employees in a note on Monday that portions of the anti-diversity memo “violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace,” according to a copy of the note seen by Reuters.
Google's CEO Sundar Pichai 

Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai  CREDIT: REUTERS

It was not  clear what legal authority Damore could try to invoke. Non-union or “at will” employees, such as most tech workers, can be fired in the United States for a wide array of reasons that have nothing to do with performance.
The US National Labour Relations Act guarantees workers, whether they are in a union or not, the right to engage in “concerted activities” for their “mutual aid or protection”.
Damore, though, would likely face an uphill fight to seek that protection based on his memo, said Alison Morantz, a Stanford University law professor with expertise in labour law.
“It’s going to be a hard sell that this activity was either concerted or for mutual aid or protection, rather than simply venting or pitting one group of workers against the others, which does not sound very mutual,” Ms Morantz said.
Debate over the treatment of women in the male-dominated tech industry has raged for months. Claims of persistent sexual harassment in the ranks of Uber Technologies Inc and of several venture capital firms led to management shakeups.
Management at the largest tech firms, including Google, have publicly committed to diversifying their workforces, although the percentage of women in engineering and management roles remains low at many companies.
Damore’s memo attacked the idea that gender diversity should be a goal.
“The distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and … these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership,” Damore wrote in the internal company memo last week.
Google’s vice president of diversity, Danielle Brown, sent a memo in response to the furore over the weekend, saying the engineer’s essay “advanced incorrect assumptions about gender”. 

 

Telegraph

Google employee’s theory that women are unsuited to tech jobs provokes immediate backlash

Google employee’s manifesto has sparked outrage

6 AUGUST 2017 • 6:26PM

AGoogle employee’s manifesto arguing that programmes increasing race and gender diversity be replaced with a commitment to “ideological diversity” has spread rapidly across social media sparking a furious backlash.
The 10-page document, apparently drafted by a senior male software engineer, was initially posted on the company’s internal forum.
Critics reacted angrily to its argument that the lack of women in tech companies was down to genetic factors, saying it was evidence of Silicon Valley’s hostility to women and minorities.
“I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership,” the author writes, according to a version posted by Gizmodo.
He goes on to argue that the company’s diversity drives have created a “politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence”.
And the document also suggests that men have a greater drive for status, in contrast to women who may be less interested in coding and have a greater connection to “people and aesthetics”.
The provocative essay, entitled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber”, first began making waves on Friday. A string of Google employees expressed their anger as the document spread internally.Before long, details of the manifesto leaked out and the outrage snowballed.
For many it was confirmation of biases common among the white men who dominate Silicon Valley. Google’s new vice-president of diversity, integrity and governance, Danielle Brown, sent a memo to staff distancing the company from the views.
She said it was not a viewpoint endorsed by Google.
“Diversity and inclusion are a fundamental part of our values and the culture we continue to cultivate,” she wrote.
“We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company, and we’ll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul.”

Canada Claims Authority to Censor Your Internet Searches

Not Canadian? Not in Canada? It doesn’t matter, according to its supreme court.

[While Justin Trudeau, the Trust Fund Kid, was dancing and prancing with his LGBTQ… constituency this past weekend, a media distraction, the unelected tyrants of the Surpreme Court were leeching away Canadians’ freedoms to search the Internet. — Paul Frromm]

|

CensorshipGeorge TsartsianidisThe Canadian Supreme Court today ruled the country has the authority to demand Google censor and remove links to certain web pages or online content.

The idea that governments can force Google to deindex links to pages is unfortunately not new (see the European Union’s “right to be forgotten“). What matters internationally in this case is the government is forcing Google to remove links from searches regardless of where the Internet user is. That is to say: Canada is demanding the authority to censor the internet outside of its physical borders and control what people who are not Canadian citizens can find online.

Today’s court ruling declares that because the Internet doesn’t have any borders, when Canada decides Google has to censor content it should be a global order: “The Internet has no borders — its natural habitat is global. The only way to ensure that the interlocutory injunction attained its objective was to have it apply where Google operates — globally.”

The case involves copyright and intellectual property claims. A tech firm was accusing another firm of stealing and duplicating one of its products and selling it online. Google was asked to deindex the links to the firm accused of stealing so that it wouldn’t show up in search results. Google complied with court orders, but only for searches from within Canada.

Canada’s Supreme Court sees geographical limits (even virtual ones) on its ability to censor speech as “facilitating” illegal commerce rather than a speech issue. Here’s a paragraph from the ruling that should give folks pause:

This is not an order to remove speech that, on its face, engages freedom of expression values, it is an order to de-index websites that are in violation of several court orders. We have not, to date, accepted that freedom of expression requires the facilitation of the unlawful sale of goods.

Canada has hate speech laws. Does it follow that Canada should require Google to deindex pages containing what it deems “hate speech” in the United States? If Canada does not because it acknowledges limits to its reach as a nation is it “facilitating” something unlawful?

The court notes Google removes links due to court orders based on content and still doesn’t seem to see an issue in a country’s boundary of authority:

[Google] acknowledges, fairly, that it can, and often does, exactly what is being asked of it in this case, that is, alter search results. It does so to avoid generating links to child pornography and websites containing “hate speech”. It also complies with notices it receives under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2680 (1998) to de-index content from its search results that allegedly infringes copyright, and removes websites that are subject to court orders.

The court, in justifying its ruling, is unwittingly bringing up problems with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA is intended as a tool for fight online piracy and intellectual property theft by making it easier to remove copyrighted material through an ownership claim process. It is also prone to abuse.

People abuse the DMCA’s “take down” process in order to try to censor speech, critiques or commentary, they find objectionable. It can be as minor as trying to censor critical video game reviews, or extend as far as criticizing another country’s leaders. Ecuadorian officials once attempted to use the DMCA to censor criticism of government actions. Google itself has stepped in to try to help users fend off abusive DMCA take-down requests.

Invoking other forms of legally recognized internet censorship is not, perhaps, the defense Canada’s Supreme Court is looking for. A closer examination highlights the potential for abuses. And claiming the authority to censor Google links everywhere in the world is a decision begging to be abused.

Read the court’s ruling here. France has attempted similar international censorship methods.

In Response to Zionist Pressure the Internet Bigs Vow to Censor “Racism, Anti-Semitism” and Criticism of Israel

In Response to Zionist Pressure the Internet Bigs Vow to Censor “Racism, Anti-Semitism” and Criticism of Israel

Cancelling the odd conference of free thinkers under pressure from the Zionist lobby, as the Hungarian Government failed to do this past weekend in Budapest, is small potatoes compared to the main target. For 20 years, groups like the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League have tried to gag the Internet as a free forum for ideas, well any ideas they don’t like; such as criticism of Israel, serious discussion of immigration and replacement of Whites (dubbed “racism”), and any challenge to the Hollywood version of World War II (dubbed “anti-semitism” of “holocaust denial.”
 
In Response to Zionist Pressure the Internet Bigs Vow to Censor "Racism, Anti-Semitism" and Criticism of Israel
Cancelling the odd conference of free thinkers under pressure from the Zionist lobby, as the Hungarian Government failed to do this past weekend in Budapest, is small potatoes compared to the main target. For 20 years, groups like the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League have tried to gag the Internet as a free forum for ideas, well any ideas they don't like; such as criticism of Israel, serious discussion of immigration and replacement of Whites (dubbed "racism"), and any challenge to the Hollywood version of World War II (dubbed "anti-semitism" of "holocaust denial."

This is an effort to do away with freedom of speech in the comment sections of just about any and all sites. A trial run for implementing this in the physical world perhaps?  Anyway their excuse is to do stop "racism, hatred, antisemitism, and anti israeli comments."  Apparently the latter is the real motivation.

Come on, Free Speech Supporters, contact Google, Twitter, facebook and Microsoft and remind them that America still has a quaint concept called the First Amendment. That means FREEDOM OF SPEECH, for the benefit of the politically correct brainwashed. Beyond that, there is the basic human right of FREEDOM OF SPEECH. How dare they!

Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Web giants unite to fight online hate
By Marcus Dysch, September 23, 2014
Follow Marcus on Twitter
Internet giants Twitter, Facebook, Google and Microsoft have pledged to work harder to tackle online hatred after agreeing a deal with a leading antisemitism watchdog.
The companies endorsed a series of pledges on Monday following talks in California with the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism.
Described by one insider as a "game-changing" development, the agreement will see the companies increase efforts to stop the proliferation of racist and abusive comments on their sites.
The technology firms are all members of the ICCA's working group on cyber hate. The Anti-Defamation League is a co-convenor of the group. The taskforce has been leading collaborative efforts with politicians, lawyers and the business world to force racism and hatred from the web.
Digital help
An IT professional with over 30 years experience has launched an initiative to fight antisemitism and anti-Israel activity on social media.
The DJ First scheme offers free training courses for members of the community on how to use social networks like Twitter.
Gary Simon, who set up the project, explained that social media could be harnessed as a weapon against antisemitism but the community was suffering from a knowledge gap in the area.
Under the agreement, the companies have committed to introduce more user-friendly reporting systems, and will respond quicker to allegations of abuse. They will also enforce tougher sanctions against those who post abusive messages.
More work will now take place between the companies to develop further ideas on tackling online hate speech and create educational materials.
An ICCA spokeswoman in London said: "This is very significant. It's the first time solutions have been found. If we have the big players then the others will follow. It's not too much to say it's a game-changer."
British members of the working group travelled to Los Angeles last week to strike the deal. Labour MP John Mann joined Superintendent Paul Giannasi, of the Ministry of Justice's Hate Crime Unit, and Mike Whine of the Community Security Trust, in California.
Mr Mann, ICAA chair, said: "We welcome this development and will continue to work with the industry, governments and parliaments to implement these best practices and work against the spread of hatred on the internet."
Mr Whine said: "The internet has facilitated and encouraged the spread of hate speech. The impact is of mounting concern to governments, their criminal justice agencies and civil society alike.
"These new agreed best practices are a significant step forward. They follow five meetings in Silicon Valley which CST helped prepare and facilitate."
LikeLike ·  · Share
 
This is an effort to do away with freedom of speech in the comment sections of just about any and all sites. A trial run for implementing this in the physical world perhaps?  Anyway their excuse is to do stop “racism, hatred, antisemitism, and anti israeli comments.”  Apparently the latter is the real motivation.
 
Come on, Free Speech Supporters, contact Google, Twitter, facebook and Microsoft and remind them that America still has a quaint concept called the First Amendment. That means FREEDOM OF SPEECH, for the benefit of the politically correct brainwashed. Beyond that, there is the basic human right of FREEDOM OF SPEECH. How dare they!
 
 
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
 

 

Web giants unite to fight online hate

By Marcus Dysch, September 23, 2014
Follow Marcus on Twitter

Internet giants Twitter, Facebook, Google and Microsoft have pledged to work harder to tackle online hatred after agreeing a deal with a leading antisemitism watchdog.

The companies endorsed a series of pledges on Monday following talks in California with the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism.

Described by one insider as a “game-changing” development, the agreement will see the companies increase efforts to stop the proliferation of racist and abusive comments on their sites.

The technology firms are all members of the ICCA’s working group on cyber hate. The Anti-Defamation League is a co-convenor of the group. The taskforce has been leading collaborative efforts with politicians, lawyers and the business world to force racism and hatred from the web.

Digital help

An IT professional with over 30 years experience has launched an initiative to fight antisemitism and anti-Israel activity on social media.
The DJ First scheme offers free training courses for members of the community on how to use social networks like Twitter.
Gary Simon, who set up the project, explained that social media could be harnessed as a weapon against antisemitism but the community was suffering from a knowledge gap in the area.

 

Under the agreement, the companies have committed to introduce more user-friendly reporting systems, and will respond quicker to allegations of abuse. They will also enforce tougher sanctions against those who post abusive messages.

More work will now take place between the companies to develop further ideas on tackling online hate speech and create educational materials.

An ICCA spokeswoman in London said: “This is very significant. It’s the first time solutions have been found. If we have the big players then the others will follow. It’s not too much to say it’s a game-changer.”

British members of the working group travelled to Los Angeles last week to strike the deal. Labour MP John Mann joined Superintendent Paul Giannasi, of the Ministry of Justice’s Hate Crime Unit, and Mike Whine of the Community Security Trust, in California.

Mr Mann, ICAA chair, said: “We welcome this development and will continue to work with the industry, governments and parliaments to implement these best practices and work against the spread of hatred on the internet.”

Mr Whine said: “The internet has facilitated and encouraged the spread of hate speech. The impact is of mounting concern to governments, their criminal justice agencies and civil society alike.

“These new agreed best practices are a significant step forward. They follow five meetings in Silicon Valley which CST helped prepare and facilitate.”